IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Ranu And Ors – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 3416 of 2023
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Settlement - Matrimonial Dispute - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B(1) and 13B(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR filed under Section 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Bawana, as the parties had settled their matrimonial dispute and obtained a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had amicably settled all their disputes, obtained a divorce, and the complainant no longer wished to pursue the complaint. It held that continuing with the complaint would serve no useful purpose and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it.
Issues: Quashing of FIR under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, Settlement of Matrimonial Dispute, Genuine Consent of Parties
Ratio Decidendi: Cases arising from matrimonial disputes should be put to rest if the parties have arrived at a genuine settlement. The court relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226; Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it, considering the genuine settlement between the parties and the complainant's withdrawal of the complaint.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 12855/2023 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3416/2023
1. Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.0231 dated 05.03.2022 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC at PS Bawana.
2. Facts, in brief, are that the marriage between petitioner No.1 namely Ranu and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on 30.04.2021 as per Hindu rites and customs in Delhi. No child was born out of this wedlock. Thereafter owing to temperamental differences, both parties startedresiding separately since July 2021. Subsequently, respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and FIR No. 231/2022 dated 05.03.2022, was registered at PS Bawana (Outer North), Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was no probability or possibility of them living together as Husband and Wife, thematter was referred to Samadhan (Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre) vide an order dated 01.09.2022 passed by this Court. Parties thereafterarrived at a settlement dated 21.09.2022 before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on the following terms& conditions:
A. Both the Parties agree to dissolve their marriage by a Decree of Divorce by Mutual Consent in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 B(1) and 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Parties have mutually agreed to file the joint Petitions for obtaining he decree of divorce by mutual consent before the appropriate Family Court having the territorial jurisdiction to grant divorce.
B. The First Party agrees to pay and the Second Party agrees to accept, a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) towards full and final settlement of all the claims ofthe Second Party arising out of the matrimonial discord between the parties, including the claims on account of stridhan, maintenance (past, present and future), alimony (past, present and future), dowry and marriage expenses etc., or any other claim which could be attributed to the marriage.
C. Both the Parties agree to file first motion petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 13B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on or before 10.10.2022.
D. First Party and the Second Party shall file a joint application for waiving of statuary period of six months within 15 days from the date of the passing of the order of joint petition under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of AMARJEET SINGH KSHARLEEN KAUR and file/cause second motion under Section 13-B(2) of theHindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage.
E. Should the Judge, Family Court, not waive the statutory period of six months, the First Party and the Second Party shall jointly make a motion under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act (Second Motion) within 7 days from theexpiration of the statutory period of six months before the concerned Family Court, in case the waiving of statutory period ofsix months is not granted by the Family Court.
F. The First Party agrees to pay and the Second Party agrees to accept the 1stInstallment of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the Second Party at the time of recording of statement of the Parties during First Motion Petition under Section13B(1) of HMA, before the concerned Family Court.
G. The First Party agrees to pay and the Second Party agrees to accept the 2ndInstallment of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the Second Party at the time of recording of statement of the Parties during Second Motion before the concerned Family Court.
H. The balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) shall be handed over to the Second Party at the time of her statement before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein the First Party shall file the quashing petition to get the abo
Matrimonial disputes should be put to rest if the parties have arrived at a genuine settlement.
The importance of amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes and the court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Matrimonial disputes should be put to quietus through genuine settlements, and continuing with the FIR may serve no useful purpose if the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.
The voluntary and amicable nature of a settlement in cases arising from matrimonial differences can be a basis for quashing non-compoundable offences under relevant legal provisions.
Matrimonial disputes should be put to quietus if the parties have arrived upon a genuine settlement, as established in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003)4 SCC 675; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, ....
The court can exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash non-compoundable offences, especially in matrimonial disputes, when the parties have reached an amicable settlement.
The court can exercise inherent powers to quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes based on amicable settlements and mutual divorce decrees.
Matrimonial disputes should be put to quietus if the parties have arrived upon a genuine settlement.
High Courts can quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes if parties reach an amicable settlement, as established in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and other precedents.
Matrimonial disputes should be put to quietus if the parties have arrived upon a genuine settlement, and the court should ensure that the settlement is voluntary and without coercion.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.